-  ^ 

1627 

129b 

r  yft 

"  V*.  I  J 

no.18 

v'?;  ^  r  • 

c.3 

1 31 51 OU 


STATE  OF  ILLINOIS 


v  ;*.i  isa 
,  ■  #.<! 


Rivers  and  Lakes  Commission 


V 


Bulletin  No.  18  Chicago,  Illinois  December  1,  1916 


FLOOD  CONTROL  FOR 
PECATONICA  RIVER 


Issued  in  accordance  with  Act 
of  the  General  Assembly 

Approved  June  10,  1911 
Amended  June  30,  1913 


[Printed  by  authority  of  the  State  of  Illinois.] 


REPORT  OF 


<c 


* 


Rivers  and  Lakes  Cmnnfeiorf^ 

*4^  <?*  <4 


ON 


'<%> 


PECATONICA  RI 


FOR 


FLOOD  CONTROL 


Arthur  W.  Charles,  Chairman 
LeRoy  K.  Sherman,  Commissioner 
Thomas  J.  Healy,  C ommissioner 
Charles  Christman n,  Secretary 


Survey  and  Investigation  by 

Rivers  and  Lakes  Commission  and  State  Geological  Survey. 


Schnepp  &  Barnes,  State  Printers 
Springfield,  III. 

1917. 

[Printed  by  authority  of  the  State  of  Illinois.] 


ILLINOIS  ST  ATE  LIBRARY 


3  112A  0123Q7A2  2 


General  Views  Along  Pecatonica  River. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE. 

Introduction . 5 

Summary  of  conclusions .  5 

The  river  and  its  industrial  development .  6 

Description .  6- 

Navigation .  7 

Pishing . 7 

Pollution .  7 

Industries . 7 

Data  on  bridges  crossing  river .  8 

Railroads .  9 

Dams  and  water  power .  9 

List  of  dams  on  Pecatonica  River  and  its  tributaries  in  Illinois .  11 

Stream  flow .  11 

General  conditions  of  flow . 11 

Stream  gaging  data .  12 

Study  of  duration  curves  and  discussion  of  flow .  14 

Past  and  probable  future  floods .  18 

Flood  relief .  24 

General  application .  24 

The  problem  at  Freeport .  26 

Plan  recommended  for  Freeport . ;..  26 

Estimated  cost  of  project .  31 

Conclusions . ., . . . . 32 

Bench  marks  on  Pecatonica  River .  33 

Publications  by  the  Rivers  and  Lakes  Commission .  34 


ILLUSTRATIONS. 

PAGE. 

Frontispiece,  General  \xiews  along  Pecatonica  River . * .  2 

PLATE. 

I.  A.  Nucleus  of  natural  dam .  10 

B.  Illustration  of  bank  erosion .  10 

II.  Map  of  Pecatonica  River  showing  natural  channel  changes .  12 

III.  Drainage  area  showing  rainfall  contours  for  storm  of  March 

24-27,  1916 .  18 

IV.  Curves  of  daily  flow  of  Pecatonica  River  at  Freeport,  flood  of 

March,  1916 .  20 

V.  Drainage  area  showing  rainfall  contours  for  storm  of  September 

12-16,  1915 .  22 

VI.  C.  &  N.  W.  Railway  bridge  and  approach: 

A.  Bridge  looking  dowmstream .  25 

B.  Bridge  looking  up  stream .  25 

C.  East  approach .  25 

VII.  A.  Railroad  transfer  bridge  at  Freeport,  looking  downstream....  28 

B.  West  end  of  same . 28 

C.  Cinder  pile,  Moline  Plow  Works .  28 

VIII.  Rating  curve,  Pecatonica  River  at  Freeport .  29 

IX.  Profile  of  Pecatonica  River  in  Illinois .  33 

X.  Map  of  East  Freeport  showing  proposed  method  of  flood  pro¬ 

tection  .  33 

FIGURE. 

1.  Duration  curve  for  1915,  at  Freeport .  15 

2.  Duration  curve  for  1916,  at  Freeport .  17 

3.  Sketch  showing  flooded  area  near  East  Freeport .  21 

4.  Flood  profile  of  Pecatonica  River  in  Freeport .  27 

5.  Cross  section  of  proposed  new  channel  through  high  ground .  30 

6.  Cross  section  of  proposed  new  channel  through  low  ground .  30 


/ 


LETTER  OF  TRANSMITTAL. 


Hon.  Edward  F.  Dunne ,  Governor  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  Springfield, 
Illinois. 

s 

Dear  Sir:  At  the  request  of  the  Pecatonica  River  Relief  Asso¬ 
ciation  of  Stephenson  County,  and  in  view  of  the  serious  damage 
caused  every  year  by  the  overflow  of  Pecatonica  River  in  the  vicinity 
of  Freeport,  The  Rivers  and  Lakes  Commission  has  made  a  careful 
survey  and  study  of  the  river  and  has  issued  this  bulletin  No.  18  on 
“Flood  Control  for  Pecatonica  River,”  presenting  briefly  the  results 
of  this  study  with  an  outline  and  estimate  of  a  definite  plan  for  con¬ 
trolling  the  flood  waters  through  the  city  of  Freeport. 

Respectfully  submitted : 

Rivers  and  Lakes  Commission  of  Illinois. 
Arthur  W.  Charles,  Chairman. 

LeRoy  K.  Sherman. 

Thomas  J.  Healy. 

Charles  Christman n.  Secretary, 

905,  130  North  Fifth  Avenue,  Chicago,  Illinois. 

December  i,  igi6. 


INTRODUCTION. 


The  frequent  recurrence  of  more  or  less  damaging  floods  along 
the  bottom  lands  of  the  Pecatonica  valley  has  been  a  source  of  great 
annoyance  and  financial  loss  to  the  residents  and  property  owners  for 
a  number  of  years.  In  1914,  the  Rivers  and  Lakes  Commission  made 
a  survey  of  the  river  from  a  point  14.5  miles  above  Freeport  to 
Brown’s  Dam,  11.6  miles  below  the  city,  to  determine  the  effects  of 
Goddard’s  Dam  and  Brown’s  Dam  in  causing  overflow  damage,  and 
also  to  study  the  general  flood  conditions  of  the  valley.  At  the  request 
of  the  Pecatonica  River  Relief  Association  of  Stephenson  County  a 
further  reconnaissance  of  the  valley  was  made  by  this  commission 
under  the  direction  of  J.  P.  Ball,  assistant  engineer,  for  the  purpose 
of  developing  a  definite  plan  of  flood  relief.  Before  the  completion  of 
this  work  a  flood  of  unprecedented  height  occurred  in  March,  1916, 
causing  damage  that,  in  the  city  of  Freeport  alone,  was  estimated  at 
over  $100,000.  Careful  observations  and  measurements  were  taken 
during  this  flood  by  H.  C.  Beckman,  junior  engineer,  U.  S.  Geological 
Survey,  working  in  cooperation  with  this  commission,  and  further 
investigations  as  to  its  effects  were  made  by  Mr.  Ball. 

This  bulletin  is  compiled  from  the  results  of  these  investigations 
and  presents  a  definite  plan  for  the  prevention  of  further  flood  damage 
at  Freeport  with  an  estimate  of  the  outlay  required  for  its  execution. 
In  the  preparation  of  this  work  maps  and  profiles  of  the  river  below 
Freeport,1  made  by  the  U.  S.  Geological  Survey  in  cooperation  with 
the  State  Geological  Survey,  have  been  of  great  value.  Acknowledge¬ 
ment  is  made  to  Mr.  Chas.  S.  Hepner,  city  engineer  of  Freeport,  and 
a  number  of  the  residents  of  the  valley  for  valuable  infomation  rela¬ 
tive  to  damages  sustained,  high  water  marks,  etc.,  and- to  the  engineer¬ 
ing  department  of  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company,  the  Chicago 
&  North  Western  Railway  Company  and  the  Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  , 
St.  Paul  Railway  Company  for  railroad  maps  furnished  by  them. 

SUMMARY  OF  CONCLUSIONS. 

The  general  conclusions  regarding  the  flood  situation  in  the  Peca¬ 
tonica  valley,  as  more  fully  developed  in  the  body  of  this  report,  may 
be  briefly  stated  as  follows : 

1.  That  the  greatest  known  flood  in  the  history  of  the  Pecatonica 
valley  occurred  on  March  28,  1916,  the  water  reaching  a  height  of  19.4 
feet  on  the  Freeport  gage,  with  a  corresponding  discharge  of  about 
17,000  cubic  feet  per  second. 

2.  That  this  discharge  was  produced  by  a  comparatively  small 
rainfall  amounting  to  less  than  two  inches  in  three  days  over  the  upper 
drainage  area,  accompanied  by  a  marked  rise  in  temperature,  at  a  time 


1  Copies  may  be  obtained  from  State  Geological  Survey,  Urbana,  Ill. 


6 


when  the  ground  was  sealed  with  ice  and  frost  and  covered  with  about 
five  inches  of  snow. 

3.  That  the  probability  of  the  occurrence  of  a  much  greater  rain¬ 
fall  under  similar  run-off  conditions  is  comparatively  remote,  and  the 
construction  of  controlling  works  to  protect  the  valley  from  inundation 
in  such  a  contingency  is  financially  impracticable. 

4.  That  the  river,  in  its  natural  state,  spreads  out  over  the  whole 
valley  during  flood  periods  and  the  tendency  is  toward  a  general 
increase  of  flood  height  and  property  damage  due  to  the  silting  up 
of  the  channel  and  the  encroachments  of  civilization. 

5.  That  the  benefits  to  be  derived  from  a  general  project  de¬ 
signed  to  prevent  the  inundation  of  the  bottom  lands  of  the  valley  as 
a  whole  would  not,  at  the  present  time,  be  commensurate  with  the 
cost  of  such  work,  but  the  annual  damage  sustained  at  Freeport  and 
vicinity  is  sufficient  to  warrant  the  outlay  necessary  to  protect  that 
city  against  a  flood  flow  of  21,000  cubic  feet  per  second,  or  nearly 
25  per  cent  greater  than  that  of  March  28,  1916. 

6.  That  this  protection  can  best  be  accomplished  by  providing 
channel  area  sufficient  to  carry  a  flood  of  21,000  cubic  feet  per  second 
with  a  slope  of  approximately  0.5  foot  per  mile  through  Freeport  and, 
where  necessary,  constructing  levees  to  protect  the  low  sections  of  the 
city  against  overflow. 

7.  That  the  required  cross  section  can  be  most  economically 
obtained  by  constructing  an  auxiliary  channel  through  East  Freeport 
as  the  enlarging  of  the  old  channel,  on  account  of  the  limited  width 
available  and  the  many  obstacles  to  be  overcome,  would  involve  an 
expenditure  much  greater  than  that  required  for  an  auxiliary  channel. 

8.  That  this  project,  more  fully  detailed  in  the  body  of  this 
report,  will  protect  the  city  of  Freeport  against  the  greatest  flood  that 
can  be  reasonably  expected  at  a  cost  of  not  more  than  $500,000,  and 
the  expenditure  of  this  amount  is  warranted  by  the  value  of  the  pro¬ 
tection  secured. 

9.  That  the  carrying  out  of  this  project  would  not  aggravate  the 
flood  conditions  in  the  valley  below  nor  interfere  with  possible  future 
activities  for  flood  control  at  other  points. 

THE  RIVER  AND  ITS  INDUSTRIAL  DEVELOPMENT. 

DESCRIPTION. 

The  Pecatonica,  or,  as  the  Indians  originally  named  it,  “Peekee- 
onikee,”  meaning  “a  stream  of  curious  moods  and  antics,”  rises  among 
the  highlands  in  the  southwestern  part  of  Wisconsin,  flowing  in  a 
general  southerly  direction  as  far  as  Freeport,  thence  northeasterly 
to  the  point  where  it  empties  into,  the  Rock  River  just  above  Rockton. 
Its  total  length  is  about  158  miles,  66  miles  in  Wisconsin  and  92  miles 
in  Illinois.  With  its  tributary  streams  it  drains  2,610  square  miles  of 
which  816  are  in  Illinois.  Its  principal  tributary  streams  in  Illinois 
are : 

Richland  Creek,  entering  north  of  Freeport  and  draining  137 
square  miles  of  which  79  are  in  Illinois. 


7 


Yellow  Creek,  entering  south  of  Freeport,  about  32  miles  in 
length  and  draining  190  square  miles. 

Rock  Run,  entering  near  the  village  of  Pecatonica,  13^  miles 
long  and  draining  89  square  miles. 

Sugar  River,  entering  about  six  miles  west  of  Rockton  with  its 
drainage  area  largely  in  Wisconsin. 

The  drainage  basin  of  the  Pecatonica  in  the  State  of  Illinois 
covers  practically  the  whole  of  Stephenson  County  and  nearly  half  of 
Winnebago  County,  but  inasmuch  as  the  headwaters  and  by  far  the 
greater  portion  of  the  total  drainage  area  of  the  stream  lie  in  Wis¬ 
consin,  the  variations  in  the  flow  are  governed  largely  by  the  physical 
and  climatic  conditions  of  that  state. 

The  total  fall  of  the  river  from  the  extreme  headwaters  in  Wis¬ 
consin  to  its  junction  with  the  Rock  River  is  about  500  feet,  although 
within  the  State  of  Illinois  the  fall  is  only  about  55  feet. 

NAVIGATION. 

In  the  original  government  survey  the  Pecatonica  was  meandered 
and  classed  as  a  navigable  stream,  and,  in  the  deeper  portions,  small 
motor  craft  are  in  use  for  pleasure  purposes  at  the  present  time, 
but  in  1884  reports  from  the  U.  S.  engineers  showed  that  the  river 
was  not  worthy  of  improvement  in  that  respect  and  navigation  of  the 
stream  not  a  public  necessity. 

FISHING. 

Little  or  no  commercial  fishing  is  carried  on  in  the  waters  of  this 
stream,  and  though  most  of  the  various  kinds  of  fish  common  to 
Illinois  may  be  found  at  many  points  in  its  course,  the  Pecatonica,  as 
compared  with  other  streams  of  the  State,  is  of  little  value  to  the 
fishing  industry. 


POLLUTION. 

The  question  of  stream  pollution  has  not  yet  reached  a  critical 
stage  as  there  are  but  few  large  towns  in  the  drainage  basin.  At 
Freeport  the  sewage,  both  domestic  and  industrial,  discharges  through 
various  outlets  directly  into  the  river.  In  February,  1914,  the  Rivers 
and  Lakes  Commission  approved  plans  allowing  the  discharge  of  an 
untreated  24-inch  sewer  into  the  river  at  that  city,  subject  to  the 
stipulation  that,  if  at  any  time  the  pollution  becomes  objectionable  the 
city  shall  install  a  suitable  disposal  plant. 

INDUSTRIES. 

The  rich  alluvial  soil  of  the  bottom  lands  and  the  good  railroad 
facilities  encourage  extensive  farming  and  grazing,  and  with  the  ex¬ 
ception  of  the  city  of  Freeport  the  whole  valley  is  devoted  largely  to 
the  raising  and  manufacture  of  dairy  products.  The  U.  S.  Census 
Report  for  1910  shows  the  proportion  of  farm  land  in  Stephenson 
County  to  be  between  95  and  100  per  cent,  and  in  Winnebago  County, 
between  80  and  90  per  cent,  and  the  average  value  of  land  for  both 
counties  between  $75  and  $100  per  acre.  Both  Stephenson  County 
and  the  city  of  Freeport  have  shown  a  steady  growth  in  population, 


DATA  ON  BRIDGES  CROSSING  THE  PECATONICA  IN  ILLINOIS, 


8 


73 

X 

u 

ri 

S 

<D 


B 

y 

n 

4-i  e\t 
0) 

B  CO 

*■3 


B 
o 

!-i 

a 

Bo 

D  B 

a,  cl, 


a 

4-1 

a 


y 

<Ur 


00 


M  •  V 
»+2  0) 

■ga® 

B  —  a 
O  •  -*-» 

£«a 

P,  •'-< 

a2£ 

B  a 
<u  V  y 

am« 

Oh  a 


C 

O 

•  rH 

-t-> 

B 

4-* 

CO 

ho 

B 

ho 

ri 

0 


a>  B 
y  0) 

B  B 

__  w 

a  ijj 

y.B 

>&4 
ri  — 

a  . 

!  2 
co  C 
0) 

a  • 

oc/3 
B  I 
P  B  O 

<-E 


CO 

a; 

a 

B 

Eh 


a 

o 

(4 

O 

a 

a 

-< 

4)  . 

• — < 

£2 

<U  J-I 

£b 

o3 

8 


B 

a 


l- 

cc 

CO 

3 

IP 

IP  CO 

a 

00 

00 

00 

Cfi 

00  00 

•  X 

00 

DC 

O 

00 

00 

X 

00 

00  X 

•  X 

X 

H 


£  s 


A 

X  0 

CO 

0 

a 

to 

to 

O 

0 

ip 

0 

Ci  —  co  0  ip 

to 

. 

X  — 

X 

co 

X 

X 

(M 

CO 

0$ 

os  cc  ~r  (M  0  co  10 

CM 

2  y -B 

0  to 

oi 

CO 

ri 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d  <M  td  00  05  ip  X 

ri 

r*  H 

CO  CO 

-r 

IP 

ip 

IP 

10 

ip 

ip 

to 

to 

CO  to  to  to  to  r- 

00 

^  rt  B 

l-  t- 

r- 

l- 

t- 

1- 

r> 

1- 

i-  j-  t-  1-  i>  r- 

t- 

^  >  B 

«  £  § 

a  °i 


ip  ip 
ip  — 


—  00 
co  co 

i-  i- 


IP 

r- 

O 

CM 

CM 

X 

1- 

0 

0 

05  '-t*  0  0 

0 

X 

0 

to 

0 

05 

IP 

1- 

CM 

0  co  co  *-  co  co 

ip 

CO 

d 

d 

CO 

'-r 

d 

00 

d 

06 

d 

—  co  to  d  O  CM  IP 

03 

■*T 

-r 

IP 

I-P 

ip 

IP 

IP 

ip 

ip 

ip 

to  to 

i- 


r-  i'-  «» 


O  O 

0 

IP 

0 

0 

0 

CM 

O 

0 

CM 

0 

0000000 

O 

x  d 

06 

d 

CO 

3 

00 

1- 

00 

co  d  to  0  to  to 

CO 

t-  — 

CM 

iP 

ip 

CM 

X 

— y 

0 

O 

05  CM  —  ^0  co  ip 

X 

T-H  ' 

CM 

CM 

CO 

CM 

CM 

r-H  1  1  1-  ■  '  •  rH 

«  bo  &  ti 
>-*  p  a;  £ 

^  D 

Bg*s 

y  *j  4-> 

?ai;s 
o  a  42 
ri 


B 

y 

E 

4-1 

B 

a 


y 

g  « 

-*->  •— I 

c/3  D-t 


0) 

4-1 

y 

U 

O 

B 

O 

o 


<u 

B 

O 


(U 

B 

o 


m  in 


CO 

y 

a 

B 

H 


B 

a 

B 

0) 

B 

a 


y 

B 

o 

4-> 

C/3 


y 

4-1 

y 

>i 

y 

C 

o 

O 


CO 

y 

a 

B 

Eh 

o 

•rH 

•*-> 

ri 

E 

B 

y 


y 

B 

O 


y 

B 

o 


c/3  c/3 


y 

4—1 

y 

y 

y 

B 

o 

O 


y 

y 

4-1 

4-4 

y 

y 

0)  0  >-» 

y 

B  B  B  “i  B  %  a, 
o  O  O  O  C  — 1 

-*->  4-J  4->  O  H-J  O  -p 

C/3  C/3  C/3  O  C/3  O  a 


B 

o 

4-1 

C/3 


y 

a 

>i 

Eh 


ho 

B 


y 


(-4 

y 

a 

y 

3 

y 


73 

y 

C 

73 

73 

03 

73 

73 

73 

73 

3 

£ 

73 

73 

B 

y 

B 

73 

B 

B 

B 

y  1 

y 

3 

y 

y 

a 

y 

Eh -2 

p*H 

-*—> 

y 

y 

Eh 

— 

Eh 

Eh 

Eh 

he 

B 

Eh 

y  b 

y 

rH 

y 

G 

y 

y 

O 

i. 

y 

y  0 

c 

y 

c 

y 

y 

^H 

r-H 

y 

4-1  j. 

0 

4-1 

4-4 

4-1 

4-1 

ceil 

0 

C/3 

hH 

c/3 

C/3 

C/3 

•  y 

•  4-1 

:  y 
.  y 

•  y 

•  B 
:  o 

con 

CO 

g5 

Eh  El 
j=  * 

“Sg 

O  o  B 

aik 

tnb 


C0 

CO 

B 

Sh 

Eh 

a 

ho 

B 

o 

S-4 

a 


CO  52  S  CO  CO  CO  CO 
co  ^2  S2  co  co  co  n 

3  B  3  3-3  B  3 

J_I  P  B  B  Jh  in  !-< 

y y y y 
o  y  y  y  y  y  y 

1.  4->  4->  4-J  4-1  4->  4-1 

i  C/3  C/3  C/3  C/3  C/3  C/3 


co 

CO 

B 

y 

Eh 

y 

y 

4-1 

C/3 


co 

B 

(Tj 

a 

C/3 


co  4>B 
y  >  4-1 
■3  C  B 

Sac 

2  3  B 


B 

o 

H-» 

ri 

o 

o 

I  1  < 

a 

B 

B 

y 

E 

rt 

£ 


e*  -4 


T»<  -4  —4 


— 4  CM  (M 


CO  CO 


O  IP 

0 

0 

IP 

0 

r— < 

ip 

0 

O  O 

O 

Q  O  O  O  O  iO  tfS 

ip  r- 

i- 

X 

Cl 

IP 

IP 

CM 

IP 

X  0 

GM 

aOnf’CNO 

x  d 

CM 

d 

to 

d 

d 

—  CM 

CM 

ci  co  O  co  **r  cm  ip 

CO 

co 

to 

to  to 

to 

to  to  t-  l-  t-  X  X 

ci 

>i 

ri 

p: 

a 

ho 


>> 

ci 

& 

a 


HJ  E  w- 

e  0.5? 

o-2W 

£  b  * 
b££ 


>> 
ri 

a  •  3 

.5fo  * 

K’?a  - 
B  ho  o 

ri  O---- 

3  y— • 
c  y 


y 

ci 

y 

B 

>. 

pi 

a 

ho 


y 

B 

y 

y 


y 

y  bi  a 
y  ri  3  a 


y  y 
>  ri 

£  41 


=3 

a 

y 


y 

o 

£ 

=<j 

B  o 
3  ^ 


.a 

.  ■  ho 

a  :-a 


,__3  V 

W  Eh  Oh  fe 


oS-g  y  o 
2«  o  B2 
D3  Pi  - 


)  ■  y 

.  ;  jg 

B*^  B  ^ 
u  Q  y  > 
y  ?.  y  < 

•J  CX  *J 
73  73  n3 

V  V  V  c 

^a  ^  b 

o  O 


:  y 

^  y 
y  44 

o  3 

a  3 
y  > 
y  ? 
y  a 


•  y 

•  y 
;  y 

,  4-4 

C/3 


-BE 
§30 

4-1  -ou  2 
3  O  B 
hoa  o 

b  a 
O 


a 

rfr-4 

ca 
y  3 
a  o 

«  y 

y  a 

PI  '-4 

^  > 
co  y 

B  3 

ci  a 
y  y 
Eh  O 


pi 


>.  _ 
a -S3 

bo  o 

a  a 


s 

3 


c  >,  3  ci  : 
b  b  ^  ^  * 

>  i^aa- 
..  5  a  tio  ho  f3 

S-g^KSs 

Srga®§5S 

E  >1  w  E  2 

22go'o 
B  £  E  o  S 
b  .2?  3  y  a 


pi 

? 

a 

ho 

5 

■s 

o 

73 

E 

•»“H 


9 


valuation  and  revenues.  At  the  present  time  Freeport  has  a  popula¬ 
tion  of  about  22,000  with  61  industrial  plants  employing  more  than 
3,200  people.  The  following  other  communities  are  located  on  the 
river  and  its  tributaries : 

Pecatonica  River.  Richland  Creek.  Yellow  Creek. 


Name. 

Pop. 

Name. 

Pop. 

Name. 

Pop. 

Pecatonica  . . . 

_ 1,200 

Orangeville  . . . 

.  .  .  400 

Pearl  City  .  . . 

. .  . .  500 

Winslow  . 

. . .  .  500 

Buena  Vista  . . 

. . .  150 

Kent  . 

. . . .  170 

McConnell  . . . 

.  . .  .  350 

Red  Oak  . 

. . .  150 

Ridott  . 

. . . .  180 

Sciota  Mills  .  .. 

. . .  150 

Shirland  . 

. . . .  110 

RAILROADS. 

The  Illinois  Central  Railroad  is  the  chief  transportation  factor  in 
the  valley.  The  headquarters  of  the  first  division  of  the  line  from 
Chicago  to  Omaha  with  terminal  and  roundhouse  facilities  are  loca¬ 
ted  at  Freeport.  From  this  point  branch  lines  run  to  Dodgeville, 
Wisconsin,  and  Madison,  Wisconsin,  and  the  old  charter  line  south  to 
Cairo.  The  Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Railroad  enters  the  valley 
near  Rockton,  following  the  bottom  lands  up  to  Freeport  where  it 
crosses  the  river  and  continues  to  Savanna,  Illinois.  A  branch  of  the 
Chicago  &  Northwestern  Railway,  running  from  Chicago  to  Freeport, 
enters  the  valley  at  Pecatonica.  The  Chicago  &  Great  Western  Rail¬ 
road  passes  about  four  miles  south  of  Freeport.  The  Freeport  & 
Rockford  Interurban  Railroad  parallels  the  Chicago  &  Northwestern 
from  Pecatonica  to  Freeport. 

DAMS  AND  WATER  POWER. 

There  are  many  small  dams  on  the  various  streams  of  the  Peca¬ 
tonica  basin  in  Illinois,  but  at  only  three  of  these  is  the  water  power, 
at  present,  being  used. 

Goddard’s  Dam,  at  Freeport,  has  a  crest  length  of  119  feet  and 
develops  a  head  of  about  4.2  feet  at  medium  low  water  stage.  It  is 
owned  and  operated  by  the  Freeport  Railway  and  Light  Company  in 
producing  electric  power  for  traction  and  lighting  purposes. 

Brown’s  Dam,  about  10  miles  below  Freeport,  has  a  crest  length 
of  175  feet  with  available  head  of  about  4.2  feet  at  medium  low  water 
and  is  operated  by  the  Pecatonica  River  Power  Company  for  electric 
traction  and  lighting  purposes. 

Orangeville  Dam,  at  Orangeville  on  Richland  Creek,  Charles  W. 
Bennett,  owner,  furnishes  power  for  a  feed  mill  and  an  electric  light¬ 
ing  system. 

The  Rivers  and  Lakes  Commission  has  held  public  hearings  and 
passed  on  matters  relative  to  back  water  effects  of  Goddard’s  Dam  and 
Brown’s  Dam  in  the  cases  of  Robert  Ilgen  et  al.  v.  Freeport  Railway 
and  Light  Company  et  al.,  (Docket  No.  12).  Case  of  C.  C.  Nolb  v. 
Chas.  W .  Bennett,  account  of  back  water.  Dam  at  Orangeville  (Docket 
No.  75). 


PLATE  I 


A.  Nucleus  of  a  Natural  Dam. 


B.  Illustration  of  Bank  Erosion 


11 


The  following  is  a  list  of  dams  in  the  Illinois  portion  of  the  drain¬ 
age  area  showing  the  owners,  location,  and  uses.  In  addition  to  this 
list  permits  have  been  granted  by  the  state  of  Wisconsin  for  twenty 
dams  in  that  state. 


LIST  OF  EXISTING  DAMS  ON  PECATONICA  RIVER  AND  ITS  TRIBUTARIES  IN 

ILLINOIS. 


Local  name. 


Owner. 


Location. 


Uses. 


Stream. 


Pecatonica  Dam 


Sec.  20,  T.  27N..R.  10  E. 


Brown's  Dam 


Freeport  Light 
&  Power  Co. . 


Sec.  1,  T.  26N..R.8W. 


Goddard’s  Dam... 


Freeport  Light 
&  Power  Co. . 


Sec. 30, T.27  N..R.  8W. 


Fisher’s  Dam . S.  K.  Fisher _ 

Orangeville  Dam..  C.  F.  Bennett... 

Yellow  Creek  Dam . 

Buena  Vista  Dam . 

Scioto  Mills  Dam . 

Reader’s  Dam . 

Polsbury  Mill  Dam . 

Davis  Mills  Dam . 

Mill  Pond  Dam . 


Sec.  12,  T.  28  N..R.6E. 
Sec. 36,  T.26N..R.  7E. 

Sec.  14, T.  26  N..R.6E. 
Sec.  15,  T.  23N..R.  7E. 
Sec.  10,  T.  27N..R.  7E. 
Sec.  23,  T.  27  N..R.9E. 
Sec.  35,  T.  28N..R.9E. 
Sec.  27,  T.  28  N..R.9E. 
Sec.  15,  T.  28N..R.9E. 


Grist  mill  not  in 
use . 

Electric  light 
and  power. . . . 

Electric  light 
and  power. . . . 

Not  in  use . 

Electric  light 
and  feed  mill. 

Not  in  use . 

Not  in  use . 

Not  in  use . 

Not  in  use . 

Not  in  use . 

Not  in  use . 

Not  in  use . 


Pecatonica. 


Pecatonica. 


Pecatonica. 

Pecatonica. 

Richland  Creek. 
Yellow  Creek. 
Richland  Creek. 
Richland  Creek. 
Rock  Run. 

Rock  Run. 

Rock  Run. 

Rock  Run. 


STREAM  FLOW. 

GENERAL  CONDITIONS  OF  FLOW. 

The  surface  of  the  Pecatonica  drainage  basin  at  the  headwaters 
in  Wisconsin  is  steep  and  hilly,  and  the  slope  of  the  channel  relatively 
great.  In  Illinois,  however,  the  valley  flattens  out  the  slope  of  the 
channel  gradually  lessens,  and  the  river  winds  back  and  forth  across 
the  valley,  often  doubling  back  on  itself  so  as  to  form  sharp  oxbows. 
The  average  fall  of  the  river  in  Wisconsin  is  more  than  6  feet  per 
mile,  whereas  in  Illinois  it  is  only  a  little  over  half  a  foot  per  mile. 
The  width  of  the  channel  ranges  from  100  to  200  feet.  The  banks 
are  low  or  of  medium  height,  and  are,  in  most  places,  fringed  with  a 
heavy  growth  of  timber.  The  valley  contains  no  large  lakes  or 
swamps  which  might  serve  as  natural  reservoirs  for  storing  and 
retarding  the  flood  waters. 

The  form  of  the  channel  in  the  bottom  lands  is  subject  to  con¬ 
tinuous  change  due  largely  to  erosion  of  the  banks.  This  change  is 
generally  slow  but  in  some  seasons  it  amounts  to  several  feet.  Occa¬ 
sionally  a  tree,  whose  roots  have  been  undermined  by  the  water,  falls 
into  the  river  and  forms  the  nucleus  of  a  natural  dam  that  causes  the 
river  during  high  stages  to  cut  an  entirely  new  channel  for  some  dis¬ 
tance.  Plate  I  shows  something  of  the  cause  and  effect  of  such 
action,  and  Plate  II  shows  two  distinct  natural  channel  diversions  that 
were  doubtless  the  result  of  similar  action. 

The  average  annual  precipitation  in  the  valley  is  about  33  inches, 
the  larger  part  usually  falling  in  the  spring  and  summer  months.  The 
water  of  a  heavy  rainfall  in  the  steep  upper  regions  of  the  drainage 
basin  reaches  the  flat  bottom  lands  so  quickly  that  it  overfills  the 


12 


crooked  and  somewhat  snag-obstructed  channel  and  spreads  out  over 
the  adjacent  low  lands,  often  covering  the  entire  valley. 


STREAM  GAGING  DATA. 

Gaging  stations  have  been  maintained  on  the  river  and  records 
of  flow  collected  since  1914  by  the  Railroad  Commission  of  Wisconsin 


W 

3 


v> 

i) 

O 

c 

to 


t  • 

€>  .E 

X  ~ 

I  ® 

I 

CO  > 
-c  -A 
o 

tl 

v>  .y 
£  .£ 


o 

2 


cooperating  with  the  U.  S.  Geological  Survey  at  Dill,  Wisconsin,  and 
by  the  Rivers  and  Lakes  Commission  of  Illinois  cooperating  with  the 
U.  S.  Geological  Survey  at  Freeport,  Illinois.  The  mean  discharge 


13 


at  these  stations  is  determined  for  each  day  by  applying  the  mean  of 
two  observed  gage  heights  to  a  rating  curve  which  shows  the  relation 
between  gage  height  and  discharge  and  which  is  based  on  discharge 
measurements  made  with  a  current  meter.  The  records  of  mean  daily 
gage  height  and  discharge  are  given  in  the  water  supply  papers  of  the 
U.  S.  Geological  Survey,  and  will  also  be  published  at  an  early  date  in  a 
report  on  the  water  resources  of  Illinois  by  the  Rivers  and  Lakes  Com¬ 
mission.  Summaries  of  these  data  follow.  In  the  data  presented  the 
following  definition  of  terms  is  used : 

“Second-feet”  is  an  abbreviation  for  “cubic  feet  per  second.”  A 
second-foot  is  the  rate  of  discharge  of  water  flowing  in  a  channel  of 
rectangular  cross-section  1  foot  wide  and  1  foot  deep  at  an  average 
velocity  of  1  foot  per  second. 


MONTHLY  DISCHARGE  OF  PECATONICA  RIVER  AT  DILL,  WIS.,  FOR  THE  YEARS 

ENDING  SEPTEMBER.  30.  1914-1916. 

(Drainage  area,  959  square  miles.) 


Month. 

Dischargre  in  second-feet. 

Run-off. 

• 

Accuracy. 

Maxi¬ 

mum. 

Mini¬ 

mum. 

Mean. 

Per 

square 

mile. 

Depth  in  inch¬ 
es  on  drain¬ 
age  area. 

1914 

October . 

November . 

- 

December . 

January . 

February . 

308 

0.321 

0.24 

c 

March . 

681 

.710 

.82 

c 

April . 

803 

411 

515 

.537 

.60 

A 

May . 

1.290 

355 

575 

.600 

.69 

B 

June . 

1,340 

399 

613 

.639 

.72 

A 

July . 

879 

336 

430 

.449 

.52 

A 

Augrust . 

651 

300 

352 

.367 

.42 

A 

September . 

4,110 

327 

839 

.875 

.98 

B 

1914-15 

October . 

735 

376 

461 

.481 

.55 

A 

November . 

425 

380 

.396 

.44 

c 

December . 

315 

.328 

.38 

D 

January . 

266 

.277 

.32 

D 

February . 

5,460 

1,630 

1.70 

1.77 

D 

March . 

1.360 

556 

840 

.876 

1.01 

B 

April . 

556 

400 

493 

.514 

.57 

A 

May . 

1.240 

400 

576 

.601 

.69 

A 

June . 

2,060 

476 

777 

.810 

.90 

A 

July . 

1,320 

450 

585 

.610 

.70 

A 

Augrust . 

1,680 

400 

631 

.658 

.76 

A 

September . 

6,590 

400 

2,050 

2.14 

,  2.39 

B 

The  year . 

6.590 

741 

.773 

10.48 

1915-16 

October . 

1.480 

625 

877 

.915 

1.05 

A 

November . 

1,320 

556 

679 

.708 

.79 

A 

December . 

661 

476 

538 

.561 

.65 

C 

January . 

5, 180 

489 

1,780 

1.86 

2.14 

D 

February . 

2,510 

528 

1,040 

1.08 

1.16 

D 

March . 

013, 100 

400 

1,960 

2.04 

2.35 

C 

April . 

1,160 

537 

692 

.722 

.81 

A 

May . 

1.200 

511 

651 

.679 

.78 

A 

June . 

1,880 

498 

922 

.961 

1.07 

B 

July . 

1 , 320 

414 

521 

.543 

.63 

B 

Augrust . 

462 

314 

375 

.391 

.45 

B 

September . 

1,970 

356 

552 

.576 

.64 

B 

The  year . 

13,100 

314 

883 

.921 

12.52 

a  Crest  stagre. 


14 


MONTHLY  DISCHARGE  OF  PECATONICA  RIVER  AT  FREEPORT,  ILL.,  FOR  THE 

YEARS  ENDING  SEPTEMBER  30,  1915-1916. 

(Drainage  area,  1,330  square  miles.) 


Month. 

Discharge  in  second-feet. 

Run-off. 

Accuracy. 

Maxi¬ 

mum. 

Mini¬ 

mum. 

Mean. 

Per 

square 

mile. 

Depth  in  inch¬ 
es  on  drain¬ 
age  area. 

1914-15 

October . 

942 

469 

590 

0.444 

0.51 

A 

November . 

ODD 

341 

477 

.359 

.40 

A 

Dpr.ember . 

322 

443 

.333 

.38 

B 

January . 

450 

.338 

.39 

D 

Pphrnarv . 

8.520 

3.320 

2.50 

2.60 

D 

March . 

6,310 

824 

1.410 

1.06 

1.22 

B 

April . 

801 

519 

667 

.502 

.56 

A 

May . 

2.100 

502 

801 

.602 

.69 

A 

June . 

2.670 

672 

1.140 

.857 

.96 

A 

July . 

1;  710 

632 

963 

.724 

.83 

A 

August . 

2,880 

612 

996 

.749 

.86 

A 

September . 

6.310 

555 

2.630 

1.98 

2.21 

B 

The  year . 

8,520 

322 

1.140 

.857 

11.61 

1915-16 

October . 

4.270 

894 

1,300 

.977 

1.13 

A 

November . 

2,020 

757 

981 

.738 

.82 

A 

December . 

1,020 

714 

813 

.611 

.70 

B 

January . 

6.310 

593 

2.480 

1.86 

2.14 

D 

February . 

3.830 

714 

1.500 

1.13 

1.22 

D 

March . 

17.000 

593 

2,910 

2.19 

2.52 

B 

April . 

7,770 

779 

1.270 

.955 

1.07 

A 

May . 

1,530 

757 

1.050v 

.789 

.91 

A 

June . 

3.120 

894 

1.600 

1.20 

1.34 

A 

July . 

1,710 

537 

874 

.657 

.76 

A 

August . 

1.090 

423 

530 

.398 

.46 

A 

September . 

2,520 

453 

844 

.635 

.71  . 

A 

The  year . 

17.000 

423 

1.350 

1.02 

13.78 

“Second-feet  per  square  mile”  is  the  average  number  of  cubic 
feet  of  water  flowing  per  second  from  each  square  mile  of  area  drained 
on  the  assumption  that  the  run-off  is  distributed  uniformly  both  as 
regards  time  and  area. 

“Run-off,  depth  in  inches”  is  the  depth  to  which  the  drainage  area 
would  be  covered  if  all  the  water  flowing  from  it  in  a  given  period 
were  conserved  and  uniformly  distributed  on  the  surface.  It  is  used 
for  comparing  run-off  with  rainfall,  which  is  usually  expressed  in 
inches  of  depth. 

The  information  given  in  the  column  headed  “Accuracy”  in  the 
monthly  discharge  table  is  applicable  to  the  monthly  mean  only  and 
not  to  the  estimate  of  maximum  and  minimum  discharge  nor  to  that 
for  any  one  day.  It  is  based  on  the  accuracy  of  the  rating  curve,  the 
probable  reliability  of  the  gage  reader,  the  number  of  gage  readings 
per  day,  the  range  of  the  fluctuations  in  stage,  and  knowledge  of  local 
conditions.  In  this  column  A  indicates  that  the  mean  monthly  flow  is 
probably  accurate  within  5  per  cent;  B,  within  10  per  cent;  C,  within 
15  per  cent;  D,  within  25  per  cent.  Special  conditions  are  covered 
by  foot  notes. 

STUDY  OF  DURATION  CURVES  AND  DISCUSSION  OF  FLOW. 

The  duration  curves,  Figures  1  and  2  for  the  flow  at  Freeport 
show  the  number  of  days  and  percentage  of  time  in  each  year  that  the 


15 


flow  equalled  or  exceeded  any  given  amount.  For  example,  to  find 
the  number  of  days  in  1916  that  the  flow  was  equal  to  4,000  cubic  feet 
per  second,  follow  the  horizontal  line  representing  that  quantity  to 
the  point  where  it  intersects  the  curve  and  then  drop  vertically  down¬ 
ward  to  the  scale  of  days,  which  shows  17  days.  Subtracting  17 


from  366  gives  349  as  the  number  of  days  for  which  the  flow  was  less 
than  4,000  cubic  feet  per  second. 

The  terms  ‘‘ordinary  flow”  and  “normal  flow”  are  usually  taken 
to  mean  the  flow  which  is  equalled  50  per  cent  of  the  time,  or,  in 
other  words,  the  flow  that  is  exceeded  as  many  days  in  the  period 
under  consideration  as  it  is  not  equalled.  The  duration  curves  show 


16 


that  the  ordinary  flow  for  1915  was  660  cubic  feet  per  second,  or 
0.496  cubic  feet  per  second  per  square  mile  of  drainage  area ;  and  that 
for  1916  was  930  cubic  feet  per  second,  or  0.699  cubic  feet  per  second 
per  square  mile. 

The  “average  flow”  or  “mean  flow”  of  a  stream  is  the  average 
for  all  the  days  during  the  period  under  consideration.  It  is  not  the 
same  as  the  “ordinary  flow.”  The  tables  of  monthly  discharge  show 
that  the  average  flow  at  Freeport  for  1915  was  1,140  cubic  feet  per 
second,  or  0.857  cubic  feet  per  second  per  square  mile,  and  that  for 
1916  was  1,350  cubic  feet  per  second,  or  1.02  cubic  feet  per  second  per 
square  mile.  It  will  be  observed  that  these  are  larger  than  the  ordin¬ 
ary  flow  for  the  same  periods. 


PRECIPITATION.  IN  INCHES.  AT  STATIONS  IN  DRAINAGE  BASIN  OF  PECATONICA 
RIVER  DURING  THE  YEARS  ENDING  SEPTEMBER  30,  1915-1916. 


Station. 

October. 

November. 

|  December. 

January. 

February. 

March. 

April. 

May. 

June. 

July. 

August. 

September. 

Annual. 

1914-1915 

Dodgeville,  Wis . 

3.20 

0.48 

1 . 15 

1.31 

1.92 

0.20 

0.00 

7.78 

2.90 

5.43 

2.12 

11.88 

38.37 

Darling-ton,  Wis . 

3.21 

0.45 

2.05 

0.75 

2.53 

0. 75 

0.30 

6.30 

4.15 

4.35 

4.00 

10.85 

39.69 

Dakota,  Ill . 

2.00 

0.24 

1.99 

1.39 

1.04 

0.11 

0.20 

a 

4.63 

7.21 

2.66 

6.77 

628.24 

1915-1916 

Dodgeville,  Wis . 

0.34 

3.52 

0.50 

4.30 

1.20 

3.82 

2.30 

4.35 

7.50 

0.46 

2.27 

7.20 

37.76 

Darling-ton,  Wis . 

0.70 

2.45 

0.14 

2.15 

1.02 

3.06 

3.00 

2.40 

4.85 

2.64 

1.17 

8.05 

31.63 

Dakota.  Ill . 

0.64 

2.95 

0.18 

3.89 

0.81 

2.44 

Freeport,  Ill . .’ . 

5.30 

7.88 

1.60 

4.60 

9.05 

C39.34 

a  No  record. 
b  li  Months. 

c  11  months  at  Dakota  and  Freeport. 


Although  the  total  precipitation  during  each  year  was  about  the 
same  it  will  be  noted  that  both  the  ordinary  and  average  flow  were 
considerably  less  in  1915  than  in  1916.  This  'was  due  probably  to  the 
difference  in  the  distribution  of  the  precipitation  throughout  the  years. 
The  precipitation  from  July  to  September,  inclusive,  when  the  quan¬ 
tity  evaporated  and  used  by  plants  would  be  the  greatest,  was  a  larger 
percentage  of  the  total  precipitation  for  the  year  in  1915  than  in  1916. 
Also,  the  heavier  rainfall  during  the  summer  of  1915  increased  the 
amount  of  water  held  as  ground  storage  and  afterward  gradually  re¬ 
leased  to  augment  the  flow  during  the  following  autumn,  thereby  in¬ 
creasing  the  flow  for  1916.  Further,  in  1916,  the  precipitation  from 
January  to  April  inclusive,  when  the  percentage  of  run-off  would  be 
relatively  large,  was  greater  than  for  the  same  period  in  1915. 

It  is  difficult  to  estimate  from  the  records  of  only  two  years  how 
these  ordinary  and  average  flows  would  compare  with  those  determined 
from  records  of  a  much  longer  period.  The  average  precipitation  in 
the  drainage  basin  for  each  year  was  about  37  inches,  whereas  the 
normal  annual  precipitation  for  this  region  is  only  about  33  inches. 
Owing,  however,  to  the  conditions  favorable  to  relatively  small  run-off 
that  existed  during  1915,  as  described  above,  the  results  for  that  year 


17 


are  probably  nearer  the  average  that  might  be  expected  from  a  long 

period. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  average  flow  per  square  mile  of 
drainage  area  was  greater  at  Dill  than  at  Freeport  during  both  years, 
the  average  flow  at  Dill  having  been  0.773  and  0.991  cubic  feet  per 


o  — 

D 

IS( 

;hc 

U3 

e- 

UP 

71 

'ee 

P 

er 

oeco 

id 

o 

ro 

L— 

.< 

O 

{ 

o 

» 

J 

> 

> 

o 

o 

c 

C 

C 

< 

p 

> 

c 

l 

c 

£ 

c 

1 

P 

> 

7 

r 

i 

o 

Oo 

rs> 

o 

.< 

o 

©  1 

O 

<T> 

3 

0> 

03 

0) 

S  o 

3*  -h 

d 

3 

(0 

8 

.« 

s« 

8 

s* 

8 

O 

O 

8 

• 

O 

&  “ 

2 

e 

3  ^ 

• 

O-  O  ’ 

0) 

•n 

^  o 

<  S’ 

2f  T  - 

i  8  1 

fb 

3 

CL  ^ 

5  o 

<£> 

CO 

OJ  r-o 

“5-  "O  ST 

oj  pi 

~  o  »  S  H 

O'  z  £  , 

/  o  _  Ln 

c  o  ^  h 

£  H  S 

_  d  23  r*  m 

<£  5  “  o 

a>  z  rn  -n 

30  ^  _  8  H 

c  >  £>  P 

5  H  3  i  o,I 

rn  ^  ^  o 

x>  3  cn 
m  oi 

m  c/i  c>i 

~ 

o  §  *  f 

H  sill 

— 

1  1 

( 

■J 

tn 

! 

c 

-o 

) 

09 

1 

< 

7 

O 

1 

7 

r- 

S 

E>j 

£ 

1 

f 

<u 

1 

t 

j 

1.0 

ri 

1 

7 

T 

1-off 

per  Sq  IV 

rainaqe  Area  - 

Cubic  Feet 

per  5 

ec.  ^ 

FIGURE  2. 


second  per  square  mile  in  1915  and  1916  respectively,  and  that  at 
Freeport  only  0.564  and  0.797  cubic  feet  per  second  per  square  mile 
during  the  same  periods.  This  probably  was  due  largely  to  the  fact 
that  the  average  slope  of  the  drainage  basin  above  Dill  is  greater  than 


18 


that  above  Freeport.  Other  things  being  equal,  the  run-off  from  steep 
slopes  is  greater  than  that  from  moderate  or  flat  slopes. 

PAST  AND  PROBABLE  FUTURE  FLOODS. 


As  conditions  that  exist  in  the  region  of  the  headwaters  favor 
quick  run-off,  floods  on  the  river  are  caused  rather  frequently  by  the 


PLATE  III. 


heavier  storms,  and  usually  the  banks  in  Illinois  are  overflowed  several 
times  each  year.  As  a  rule  spring  floods  are  the  heaviest  and,  espe¬ 
cially  when  accompanied  by  ice  jams,  cause  considerable  damage  in  the 
city  of  Freeport.  Water  passing  over  the  east  bank  above  the  city 


19 


flows  through  the  section  known  as  East  Freeport,  inundating  large 
areas,  flooding  the  cellars  and  ground  floors  of  residences,  destroying 
goods  and  furniture  and  putting  out  of  service  the  sewerage  system. 
At  the  factories,  some  of  which  employ  more  than  2,000  men,  the 
damage  to  property  and  the  loss  in  time  and  wages  are  great.  Traffic 
on  most  of  the  railroads  is  prevented  by  the  washing  out  or  submerging 
of  the  tracks,  and  even  vehicle  traffic  is  made  impossible.  The  aver¬ 
age  annual  monetary  loss  is  estimated  by  Mr.  C.  S.  Hepner,  city  en¬ 
gineer,  Freeport,  at  $50,000. 

The  summer  floods,  although  usually  not  so  large  as  those  of  the 
spring,  inflict  much  damage  on  the  farm  lands  and  often  destroy  whole 
fields  of  corn  and  wheat. 

Since  the  gaging  station  at  Freeport  was  established,  in  Septem¬ 
ber,  1914,  many  floods  have  occurred.  On  September  16,  1914,  the 
river  reached  a  stage  of  18.4  feet  on  the  gage,  flooded  East  Freeport 
and  caused  much  damage  to  crops  on  the  low  farm  lands.  In  1915  it 
reached  a  stage  of  17.1  feet  February  28,  16.1  feet  September  17-18, 
and  15.8  feet  September  28.  In  1916  it  reached  a  stage  of  16.5  feet 
January  22,  16.8  feet  January  28,  14.1  feet  February  23,  and  19.4  feet 
March  28. 

The  storm  causing  the  flood  of  February,  1916,  left  the  drainage 
basin  with  an  impervious  coating  of  ice  and  frost  which,  on  March  22, 
was  covered  with  a  blanket  of  snow  equivalent  to  a  rain  of  about  0.8 
inch.  The  temperature  began  to  rise  March  24,  and  in  the  next  three 
days  there  was  a  rainfall,  as  shown  in  Plate  III,  averaging  about  1.75 
inches  on  the  drainage  basin.  Although  the  precipitation  during  this 
period  was  not  exceptionally  heavy,  the  run-off  was  very  rapid,  owing 
to  the  impervious  condition  of  the  ground,  and  the  flood  was  the  largest 
within  the  memory  of  the  oldest  residents  of  the  valley.  The  water 
began  to  rise  rapidly  at  Freeport  March  25,  reaching  the  maximum 
stage  of  19.4  feet  by  the  morning  of  March  28  and  continuing  at  that 
stage  until  night.  By  the  next  morning  the  water  had  dropped  to  19.2 
feet  on  the  gage  and  it  continued  to  fall  slowly.  At  the  maximum 
stage  of  19.4  feet  on  March  28  the  discharge,  or  flow,  in  the  regular 
channel  of  the  river  at  the  Stephenson  Street  bridge  was  measured  by 

H.  C.  Beckman,  junior  engineer,  U.  S.  Geological  Survey,  by  means  of 
a  current  meter  and  found  to  be  14,000  cubic  feet  per  second.  The 
amount  of  the  overflow  through  East  Freeport  was  determined  by 
multiplying  the  mean  velocity,  estimated  from  the  velocity  of  drift¬ 
wood,  by  the  cross-sectional  area  of  the  overflow  channel  determined 
by  leveling  after  the  water  had  subsided.  Thi%  method  gave  a  flow  of 
3,000  cubic  feet  per  second.  The  total  discharge  at  this  maximum 
stage  was  thus  determined  to  be  17,000  cubic  feet  per  second,  or  a  run¬ 
off  averaging  about  13  cubic  feet  per  second  per  square  mile  from  the 

I, 330  square  miles  of  drainage  area  above  Freeport.  The  details  of 
time  and  magnitude  of  this  flood  are  shown  graphically  in  Plate  IV. 

As  this  flood  came  before  the  crops  were  planted  the  damage  sus¬ 
tained  by  the  farming  interests  was  not  great.  In  the  city  of  Freeport, 
however,  it  was  very  large.  Traffic  into  the  city  was  stopped  on  most 


20 


of  the  railroads  for  several  days.  The  electric  light  plant  and  sewer- 


PLATE  IY. 


and  did  much  damage  by  flooding  basements  and  first  floors  of  resi¬ 
dences.  Speaking  of  this  flood  Mr.  C.  S.  Hepner,  city  engineer,  Free¬ 
port,  Ill.,  says  that  “$100,000  is  a  fair  estimate  of  the  direct  monetary 
loss.  The  indirect  loss  due  to  depreciation  of  property  values,  reduc¬ 
tion  of  rental  rates,  and  retarding  of  the  development  of  this  section 
of  the  city  certainly  totals  an  equal  amount.” 


21 


As  the  flood  of  March,  1916,  on  this  river  was  the  greatest  within 
the  last  fifty  years,  or  more,  it  may  be  regarded  by  some  as  the  largest 
possible.  A  study  of  the  factors  causing  floods  and  the  extent  to 
which  these  factors  acted  in  causing  this  particular  flood  indicates  that 
this  opinion  is  not  well  founded.  Of  the  principal  factors  controlling 
run-off  on  any  particular  drainage  basin,  all  are  fixed  and  invariable 


except  three — precipitation,  condition  of  soil,  and  temperature.  The 
greater  the  rate  and  amount  of  the  rainfall,  other  things  being  equal, 
the  greater  will  be  the  flood  produced.  A  heavy  rain  falling  on  a  dry 
and  pervious  soil  is  partly  absorbed  by  the  ground  and  slowly  released 
in  the  future;  but  if  this  rain  falls  on  a  soil  already  saturated  from 


22 


previous  rains,  or  melted  snows,  or  on  a  soil  made  impervious  by  frost 
and  ice,  the  run-off  will  be  much  greater,  and  if  the  rain  falls  when 
considerable  snow  is  melting,  the  run-off  is  further  augmented.  The 
heaviest  floods  occur  when  the  most  favorable  condition  of  all  these 
factors  are  combined. 


As  already  indicated,  the  rainfall  preceding  the  flood  of  March, 
1916,  was  not  large,  but  the  conditions  of  temperature  and  soil  were 
ideal  for  quick  run-off,  as  the  ground  was  sealed  with  frost  and  ice, 
thus  preventing  absorption  of  water,  and  the  temperature  increased 
just  in  time  to  add  snow  water  to  that  resulting  from  the  rain. 


23 


During  September  12-16,  1915,  one  of  the  heaviest  storms  ever  re^ 
corded  in  Southern  Wisconsin  swept  across  that  region.  The  average 
rainfall,  as  shown  in  Plate  V  on  the  drainage  area  above  Freeport  was 
over  5  inches,  the  maximum  having  been  9  inches  in  the  vicinity  of 
Dodgeville,  Wis.  This  storm,  however,  came  at  a  time  when  the 
ground  was  fairly  dry,  and  although  the  rainfall  was  about  three  times 
as  large  as  that  of  March,  1916,  the  maximum  discharge  of  the  river 
at  Freeport  was  less  than  half  as  large. 

The  maximum  discharge  per  square  mile  of  area  drained  is  never 
as  great  under  the  same  conditions  from  a  large  drainage  basin  as 
from  a  small  one.  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  in  the  larger  drainage 
basin  a  greater  part  of  the  water  falling  in  the  lower  regions  of  the 
basin  can  be  carried  away  before  the  water  from  the  upper  regions 
arrives.  The  drainage  area  of  Sugar  River,  a  tributary  of  the  Peca- 
tonica,  above  Brodhead,  Wis.,  is  529  square  miles  whereas  that  for 
Pecatonica  River  above  Freeport  is  1,330  square  miles.  The  average 
slope  of  the  river  above  Brodhead  is  also  greater  than  that  above 
Freeport,  so  that  the  rate  of  run-off  at  Brodhead  would  be  greater.  In 
the  storm  of  September  12-16,  1915,  the  average  rainfall  above  Brod¬ 
head  was  nearly  6  inches,  yet  the  maximum  discharge  was  only  about 
16  cubic  feet  per  second,  or  a  square  mile  rate  of  only  about  25  per 
cent  greater  than  that  of  the  Pecatonica  River  during  March,  1916. 

Much  heavier  storms  than  either  the  one  of  September,  1915,  or 
March,  1916,  have  occurred  in  the  Upper  Mississippi  Valley  in  recent 
years.  During  July  23-24,  1912,  there  fell  in  about  24  hours  at  Mer¬ 
rill,  Wis.,  a  rain  of  11.25  inches;  10  inches  fell  on  an  area  of  100 
square  miles,  and  6  inches  on  an  area  of  1,650  square  miles.  Accord¬ 
ing  to  Mr.  C.  B.  Stewart,  consulting  engineer,  Madison,  Wis.,  the 
average  rainfall  on  the  700  square  miles  of  area  draining  into  the  Wis¬ 
consin  River  between  Merrill  and  Tomahawk  was  7.7  inches,  and  the 
maximum  run-off  from  this  area  about  65  cubic  feet  per  second  per 
square  mile. 

During  March  23-27,  1913,  a  heavy  storm  occurred  in  the  vicinity 
of  Dayton,  Ohio.  The  average  rainfall  in  the  drainage  basin  of  Miami 
River  above  Miami,  near  the  mouth,  was  about  9.5  inches.  The  maxi¬ 
mum  run-off  from  this  area  of  3,937  square  miles  was  98  cubic  feet 
per  second  per  square  mile.  1  The  following  table  gives  the  rainfall  on 
areas  of  1,500  square  miles,  or  a  little  greater  than  the  drainage  area 
of  Pecatonica  River  at  Freeport,  for  nine  of  the  greatest  recorded 
storms  in  the  Upper  Mississippi  Valley: 

1  From  report  of  Chief  Engineer,  Arthur  E.  Morgan,  Miami  Conservancy 
District. 


24 


DEPTH  IN  INCHES  OF  THE  EATEST  AVERAGE  RAINFALL  ON  AREAS  OF  1.500 
SQUARE  MILES  DURING  NINE  GREATEST  STORMS  THAT  HAVE  OCCURRED  IN 
THE  UPPER  MISSISSIPPI  VALLEY. 


Storm. 

Center. 

Greatest 

24-hour 

rainfall. 

Greatest 

48-hour 

rainfall. 

Greatest 

72-hour 

rainfall. 

1889,  May  31-June  1 . 

Pennsylvania . 

7.3 

8.6 

1900.  July  14-16 . 

Iowa . 

6.5 

10.1 

10.9 

1903.  August  26-28 . 

Iowa . 

9.5 

10.2 

1905,  June  9-10 . 

Iowa . 

9.2 

1909.  July  5-8 . 

Kansas . 

6.5 

7  2 

9  4 

1909,  July  19-22 . 

Michigan . 

7.0 

7.9 

8  3 

1910,  October  4  6 . 

Illinois . 

6.2 

9.9 

12.4 

1913,  March  23-27 . 

Ohio . 

6.3 

8.3 

9  2 

1915,  August  17-20 . 

Arkansas . 

6.5 

9.4 

12. 

A  comparison  of  the  storm  of  March,  1916,  with  those  cited  for 
Merrill,  Dayton  and  the  ones  listed  in  the  above  table  makes  it  obvious 
that  the  flood  of  March,  1916,  is  by  no  means  the  largest  that  might 
occur  on  Pecatonica  River.  Had  a  storm  as  heavy  as  any  of  those 
cited  above  occurred  in  the  drainage  basin  of  Pecatonica  River  under 
the  conditions  prevailing  in  March,  1916,  it  is  safe  to  estimate  that  the 
maximum  flood  flow  would  have  been  several  times  as  great  as  it  was, 
and  the  maximum  stage  reached  would  have  been  several  feet  higher. 
Even  if  a  storm  as  heavy  as  those  were  to  occur  under  ordinary  sum¬ 
mer  conditions  the  flood  of  March,  1916,  would  probably  be  exceeded. 

Several  factors,  however,  tend  decidedly  to  reduce  the  probability 
of  such  an  occurrence.  First,  it  is  very  improbable  that  the  area  of 
the  most  intense  rainfall  of  any  storm  will  cover  the  whole  of  any  par¬ 
ticular  drainage  area  as  large  as  that  of  Pecatonica  River  above  Free¬ 
port.  Second,  it  is  extremely  improbable  that  a  storm  as  heavy  as 
those  enumerated,  which  occur  at  any  particular  place  on  an  average 
only  once  in  a  century  or  more,  will  ever  occur  under  conditions  as 
favorable  to  quick  run-off  as  those  which  existed  in  the  Pecatonica 
Valley  during  the  flood  of  March,  1916.  On  the  other  hand,  it  should 
be  borne  in  mind  that  although  the  probability  of  such  occurrence  is 
very  small,  it  is  entirely  within  the  realm  of  possibility  and  may  take 
place  in  any  year. 

FFOOD  REFIEF. 

GENERAL  APPLICATION. 

In  studying  the  problem  of  flood  relief  let  us  first  consider  its 
application  to  the  whole  section  of  the  river  which  is  subject  to  over¬ 
flow.  In  general,  the  prevention  of  damage  from  floods  on  streams 
like  the  Pecatonica  can  be  accomplished  either  by  decreasing  the 
amount  of  the  flow  by  means  of  retarding  reservoirs,  decreasing  the 
slope  by  channel  improvement,  preventing  overflow  by  means  of  levees, 
or  by  some  combination  of  these  methods. 

In  the  case  of  the  Pecatonica,  the  construction  of  retarding  reser¬ 
voirs  is  out  of  the  question  for  the  topographical  conditions  are  such 
that  it  would  require  an  outlay  estimated  at  more  than  $3,000,000  to 
effect  a  material  reduction  in  the  flood  discharge  by  this  means.  The 


PLATE  VI 


A.  Bridge,  Looking  Down  Stream. 


B.  Bridge,  Looking  Up  Stream. 


C.  East  Approach  to  Bridge. 

C.  &  N.  W.  Ry.  Bridge  and  Approach  at  Freeport 


26 


method  of  channel  improvement,  as  applied  to  the  whole  valley,  is  also 
impracticable  on  account  of  the  enormous  amount  of  work  and  expense 
involved  as  compared  with  the  benefits  that  would  result  from  such  a 
project.  These  methods  have  been  studied  somewhat  in  detail  in  con¬ 
nection  with  the  survey,  but  it  seems  unnecessary  to  further  develop 
them  in  this  report.  The  results,  however,  indicate  that  local  relief 
must  be  obtained  by  the  application  of  local  measures  where  the  cost  of 
such  measures  is  commensurate  with  the  value  of  the  protection  se¬ 
cured. 

The  agricultural  bottom  lands  could  be  protected  against  overflow 
by  the  construction  of  levees,  but  this  would  require  that  additional 
channel  area  be  provided  to  compensate  for  the  reduction  in  width  of 
natural  floodway  produced  by  the  levees  and,  at  present,  the  benefits 
to  be  derived  from  such  improvement  hardly  seem  to  warrant  the  ex¬ 
penditure  that  it  would  involve.  It  is  possible,  however,  that  the 
growing  demands  of  agriculture  and  the  gradual  silting  up  of  the  river 
bed  will  make  it  desirable  to  adopt  such  measures  for  the  protection 
and  reclamation  of  certain  areas  at  some  future  time. 

THE  PROBLEM  AT  FREEPORT. 

The  flood  conditions  at  Freeport,  as  previously  described  in  the 
chapter  on  “Past  and  Probable  Future  Floods,”  are  much  more  acute 
than  at  any  other  point  in  the  valley  and  have  become  a -serious  menace 
to  the  industrial  growth  and  welfare  of  the  city.  These  conditions 
have  been  greatly  aggravated  during  recent  years  by  the  encroach¬ 
ments  of  man  upon  the  natural  flood  channel  of  the  stream.  Practic¬ 
ally  all  the  land  now  occupied  by  East  Freeport  was  originally  a  part 
of  the  river’s  flood  domain.  Even  the  narrow  confines  of  its  medium 
flood  channel  have  been  invaded  by  bridges,  manufacturing  plants, 
dams,  cinders,  city  refuse,  and  what  not,  until  the  flood  waters  have 
been  forced  to  such  heights  that  the  low  lying  sections  of  the  city  have 
become  their  legitimate  prey. 

A  profile  of  the  water  surface  based  on  observations  of  the  March, 
1916,  flood  (See  Fig.  4)  shows  a  fall  of  2.7  feet  between  Cedarville 
Road  and  a  point  just  below  the  Chicago  &  Northwestern  Railway 
bridge,  or  about  2.1  feet  per  mile,  while  the  corresponding  slope  below 
this  point,  where  the  river  is  allowed  to  spread  over  the  whole  valley, 
was  only  0.5  feet  per  mile. 

In  seeking  the  best  method  of  protection  for  Freeport  the  possi¬ 
bilities  of  improving  the  old  channel  have  been  considered  as  well  as 
the  relative  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  using  various  channel 
areas.  It  has  been  found  that  a  plan  contemplating  the  enlargement 
of  the  old  channel  would  require  such  an  extensive  use  of  high  retain¬ 
ing  walls,  on  account  of  the  limited  width  available,  that  its  cost  would 
greatly  exceed  that  of  an  auxiliary  channel.  After-  careful  and  ex¬ 
haustive  study  the  following  general  plan  is  recommended  as  the  most 
practical  and  satisfactory  means  of  securing  the  desired  protection. 

PLAN  OF  PROTECTION  RECOMMENDED  FOR  FREEPORT. 

The  recommended  plan  of  flood  protection  contemplates  the  con¬ 
struction  of  an  additional  channel  through  East  Freeport,  beginning 


27 


at  a  point  just  above  Cedarville  Road,  thence  following  eastward 
along  the  center  line  of  section  30  through  the  north  end  of  Taylor 
Park  to  a  point  a  quarter  of  a  mile  east  of  Henderson  Road,  thence 
in  a  southeasterly  direction  following  the  general  course  of  the  creek 
in  that  region  to  its  confluence  with  the  river.  Levees  to  prevent 


FIGURE  4. 

overflow  will  be  required  along  both  banks  of  this  channel  and  also 
along  the  east  bank  of  the  present  channel  for  the  greater  part  of  the 
distance  from  the  Cedarville  Road  to  the  Chicago  &  Northwestern 
Railway  bridge  below  the  city.  In  order  to  maintain  the  ordinary 


PLATE  VII. 


A.  R.  R.  Transfer  Bridge,  Looking  Down  Stream. 


B.  West  End  of  R.  R.  Transfer  Bridge,  Looking  Down  Stream 


C.  Cinder  Pile  at  Moline  Plow  Works 


29 


stages  of  water  and  yet  provide  for  the  ready  passage  of  flood  waters 
down  the  new  channel  it  is  proposed  to  construct,  at  the  upper  end  of 
this  channel,  an  overflow  dam  having  a  spillway  about  30'0  feet  long, 
the  crest  elevation  of  which  will  be  slightly  higher  than  that  of  the 
Goddard  dam.  A  general  outline  of  the  entire  project  is  shown  on 
the  accompanying  map,  Plate  X. 


PLATE  VIII. 


In  the  chapter  on  “Past  and  Probable  Future  Floods”  it  was 
shown  that  floods  considerably  greater  than  the  one  of  March,  1916, 
although  somewhat  improbable,  may  occur.  The  question  now  arises 
as  to  how  great  a  flood  shall  be  provided  against.  Protection  against 
the  heaviest  possible  floods  would,  on  account  of  the  probable  infre- 


30 


quency  of  such  floods  and  on  account  of  physical  limitations,  be  im¬ 
practicable.  After  careful  consideration  it  has  been  deemed  advisable 
to  base  the  design  of  the  proposed  improvement  upon  a  flood  discharge 
of  21,000  cubic  feet  per  second,  or  about  25  per  cent  greater  than  that 
of  March,  1916. 

This  improvement  will  have  practically  no  effect  on  the  flood 
stage  below  the  city  but  will  serve  to  reduce  the  slope  through  the  city 
and  confine  the  water  to  the  channels  provided  for  it. 

The  profile  (Fig.  4)  shows  the  high  water  line  of  March,  1916, 
through  Freeport.  The  surface  slope  below  the  city,  owing  to  the 
greater  area  of  overflow  there,  was  considerably  less  than  the  slope 
through  the  city. 

The  high  water  elevation  of  March,  1916,  below  the  Chicago  & 
Northwestern  Railway  bridge  near  the  lower  limits  of  the  city  was 
758.2  feet.  From  the  rating  curve  (Plate  VIII)  it  may  be  deduced 


Cross-section  of  proposed  new  channel  through  low  ground 

FIGURE  6. 

that  in  a  flood  of  21,000  cubic  feet  per  second  the  surface  elevation  at 
this  point  would  probably  be  raised  to  759.1  feet.  On  the  profile 
(Fig.  4)  are  shown  the  probable  high  water  lines  that  would  obtain 
through  Freeport  after  the  completion  of  the  proposed  improvements 
during  floods  of  17,000  (equal  to  the  flood  of  March,  1916,)  and 
21,000  cubic  feet  per  second.  These  also  represent  very  closely,  under 
the  same  conditions,  the  high  water  lines  in  the  proposed  new  channel. 

As  stated  before,  the  project  has  been  designed  to  carry  safely  a 
flow  of  21,000  cubic  feet  per  second.  In  order  to  determine  the  size 
of  additional  channel  necessary  to  accomplish  this,  the  quantity  of 
water  that  would  be  carried  by  the  present  channel  was  first  computed 


31 


by  means  of  the  Kutter  and  Chezy  formulas.  Taking  the  surface  ele¬ 
vation  below  the  Chicago  &  Northwestern  Railway  bridge  as  759.1 
feet  and  the  slope  as  0.0001,  the  area  of  the  present  channel  in  the  city 
would  be  about  3,200  square  feet,  and  the  mean  hydraulic  radius  about 
15.2  feet.  The  value  of  n  (coefficient  of  roughness)  was  computed 
from  the  flood  of  March,  1916,  and  found  to  be  0.045.  By  solving  the 
formulas  with  these  values  it  was  found  that  the  present  channel  would 
carry  a  flow  of  7,700  cubic  feet  per  second,  leaving  13,300  cubic  feet 
per  second  to  be  taken  by  the  new  channel. 

After  several  trials  it  was  found  that  a  section,  as  shown  in  Fig.  5 
for  the  new  channel  would  carry  the  required  amount.  In  the  compu¬ 
tations  the  slope,  s,  was  taken  as  0.0001  and  the  coefficient  of  rough¬ 
ness,  n,  as  0.030.  The  area  of  this  section  is  3,820  square  feet  and  the 
mean  hydraulic  radius  16.3  feet.  By  solving  the  formulas  with  these 
values  the  mean  velocity  was  found  to  be  3.46  feet  per  second,  and  the 
discharge  very  near  the  desired  13,300  cubic  feet  per  second. 

The  bottom  of  the  new  channel  will,  at  the  lower  end,  be  at  an 
elevation  of  738.0  feet;  the  slope  will  be  0.0001,  thus  making  the  eleva¬ 
tion  at  the  upper  end  approximately  739.0  feet.  A  large  part  of  the 
new  channel  will  be  through  rather  low  ground,  and  the  required  depth 
of  21  feet  will  have  to  be  obtained  by  the  aid  of  levees.  Fig.  6  shows 
a  typical  cross  section  of  the  channel  through  the  low  regions. 


ESTIMATED  COST  OF  PROJECT. 

Excavation — 

1,100,000  cu.  yds.  @  $0.18 . $200,000 

Bridges — 

3  railroad  bridges .  75,000 

3  highway  bridges . . . : .  50,000 

Dam  and  spillway .  30,000 

Right-of-way — 

For  auxiliary  channel,  65  acres  @  $500 .  32,500 

For  levee  along  left  bank  of  main  river',  14  acres  @  $500  7,000 

Damages — 

Moving  or"  buying  20  buildings .  24,000 

Miscellaneous  damages . 10,000 

Overhead  Charges — 

Engineering,  administration,  interest  10  per  cent,  etc.  .  .  .  42,500 

Contingencies,  7  per  cent .  29,000 


Total  . > . , . $500,000 


In  the  above  estimate  the  price  for  excavation  is  intended  to  cover 
the  cost  of  placing  the  excavated  material  in  levees  both  along  the  new 
channel  and  the  east  bank  of  the  river,  and  in  highway  embankments 
and  other  places  where  filling  may  be  required. 

The  items  for  bridges  are  for  the  three  railroad  and  three  high¬ 
way  bridges  that  will  have  to  be  built  across  the  new  channel.  The 
cost  of  the  right-of-way  is  for  a  strip  of  land  300  feet  wide  throughout 
the  length  of  the  new  channel,  and  a  strip  with  an  average  width  of 


32 


65  feet  along  the  greater  part  of  the  east  bank  of  the  river  through  the 
city. 

This  is  only  an  approximate  estimate  but  is  considered  adequate 
to  cover  the  actual  cost  of  the  undertaking. 

In  view  of  an  average  annual  flood  loss  of  $50,000,  a  total  expendi¬ 
ture  of  $500,000  for  protection  is  amply  justified.  The  total  cost  is 
only  five  times  the  estimated  direct  loss  sustained  in  the  single  flood  of 
March,  1916.  ' 


CONCLUSIONS. 

The  following  points  with  reference  to  the  proposed  improvement 
stand  out  for  special  consideration: 

1.  The  improvement  will  protect  the  city  of  Freeport  against  a 
flood  of  21,000  cubic  feet  per  second,  or  25  per  cent  greater  than  that 
of  March,  1916.  This  is  the  largest  flood,  in  view  of  the  probability 
of  its  occurrence,  against  which  it  would  be  economically  advisable  to 
provide  protection.  Even  in  the  event  of  a  heavier  flood  the  loss 
therefrom  would  be  considerably  reduced  by  the  project. 

2.  The  expenditure  required  for  the  improvement — estimated  at 
$500,000 — is  justified  by  the  benefits  it  will  provide. 

3.  The  lands  along  the  river  above  the  limits  of  the  improvement 
will  be  benefited  during  floods  by  a  slight  reduction  in  stage,  and  inas¬ 
much  as  the  rate  of  flow  will  not  be  increased  by  it  the  lands  below  its 
limits  will  not  be  damaged  through  an  increase  in  flood  heights. 

4.  It  will  not  appreciably  reduce  the  stages  obtaining  in  the  river 
during  periods  of  low  and  ordinary  flow,  but  will  produce  a  material 
reduction  in  stage  during  floods. 

5.  Owing  to  the  fact  that  during  periods  of  small  flow  most  of  the 
water  will  be  required  for  the  operation  of  the  Goddard  power  plant, 
only  a  relatively  small  amount,  during  such  periods,  can  be  diverted 
through  the  new  channel.  The  amount,  however,  will  probably  be 
sufficient  to  prevent  stagnation  and  its  unsanitary  effects. 

6.  As  the  improvement  is  of  only  local  interest  it  should  be  ad¬ 
ministered  by  local  authority.  It  can  probably  be  handled  best  through 
the  formation  of  an  improvement  district. 


I 


V 


PLATE  IX. 


e&- 


PLATE  X. 


33 


LIST  OF  BENCH  MARKS  ON  PECATONICA  RIVER. 

Elevation. 

1.  Rockton,  Ill. — 

In  yard  of  Town  Hall,  northeast  corner,  iron  post 

Stamped  Ill.  1915,  741 .  741.100 

2.  Rockton — 1  mile  south  by  1 . 5  miles  west  of,  at  T-Road  south  at  north¬ 

west  corner  Sec.  2  6,  T.  46  N.,  R.  1  E.  by  S.  E.,  fence  corner, 
iron  post 

Stamped  Ill.  1915,  743 .  742.616 

3.  Harrison — 2 . 5  miles  east  by  0 . 5  miles  south  of,  at  T-Road  south,  oppo¬ 

site  Bate’s  School  north  of  center  of  Sec.  32,  T.  46  N.,  R.  1  E. 
by  S.  W.,  fence  corner,  iron  post 

Stamped  Ill.  1915,  741 .  740.942 

4.  Harrison — 550  feet  east  of  bridge  over  Pecatonica  River  on  north  side 

•  of  east  and  west  road  in  line  with  center  of  road  south,  iron  post 

Stamped  1915,  734 .  733.829 

5.  Trask  Highway  Bridge — T.  27  N.,  R.  11  E.,  near  northeast  corner  of 

Sec.  6,  north  end  bridge,  copper  nail  in  elm  tree .  738.51 

6.  Pecatonica — 0 . 3  mile  of,  northeast  end  of  concrete  bridge  over  Peca¬ 

tonica  River,  on  top  of  concrete  guard  rail  chiseled  square .  751.24 

7.  T.  27  N.,  R.  9  E.,  center  of  S.  E.  %  Sec.  23,  at  road  forks,  75  feet 

south  of  center  line  of  road  west  at  southwest  corner  of  yard 
belonging  to  J.  P.  Reider — iron  post  stamped  747 .  746.883 

8.  1.0  miles  north  of  Ridott — At  steel  bridge  over  Pecatonica  River,  top  of 

northeast  wing  wall  of  north  abutment,  chiseled  square .  752.35 

9.  Ridott — 1.5  miles  south  by  2.5  miles  west  of,  at  T-Road  north  in  yard 

of  State  Road  Reform  Church,  nail  in  cherry  tree .  775.36 

10.  Freeport — Postoffice  Building,  south  entrance,  west  end  of  top  step, 

bronze  tablets  stamped  781 .  780.871 

11.  Freeport — Chiseled  square  in  top  of  stone  wall  on  north  line  of  C.  & 

N.  W.  R.  R.  right  of  way  5  feet  east  of  east  line  of  Stephenson 

St.  bridge .  762.201 

12.  Cross  on  downstream  wing  wall  of  left  abutment  of  Harlam  Bridge 

over  Pecatonica  River  in  Sec.  15,  T.  27  N.,  R.  7  E.  of  4  P.  M.  .  .  .  765.899 

13.  Cross  upstream  wing  wall  of  left  abutment  of  Rigney’s  Bridge  over 

Pecatonica  River  on  north  line  of  Sec.  9,  T.  27  N.,  R.  7  E.  of 

4th  P.  M .  768.208 

14.  Cross  on  downstream  side  of  right  abutment  of  Damascus  Highway 

Bridge  over  Pecatonica  River  in  Sec.  4,  T.  27  N.,  R.  7  E.  of 

4th  P.  M .  770.776 

15.  Cross  on  upstream  wing  wall  of  left  abutment  of  McConnell  Highway 

Bridge  near  McConnell .  774.44 

16.  Cross  on  upstream  wing  wall  of  Winslow  Highway  Bridge  over  Peca¬ 

tonica  River  at  Winslow .  782.10 

15a.  Bolt  on  guard  rail  on  upstream  side,  right  bank  on  I.  C.  R.  R.  Bridge 

below  Winslow .  778.55 

11a.  Freeport — Cross  on  upstream  wing  wall  of  left  abutment  of  Cedar- 

ville  Road  Bridge  over  Pecatonica  River .  771.093 


34 


PUBLICATIONS  ISSUED  BY  THE  RIVERS  AND  LAKES 

COMMISSION  OF  ILLINOIS. 

i 


Bulletin  No.  1 — 

The  Conservation  of  Water  Power  in  the  Desplaines  and  Illinois 
Rivers  and  the  improvement  of  these  Rivers  for  Navigation — 1911. 

Bulletin  No.  2 — 

Prospectus  of  a  project  for  a  Deep  Waterway  and  conservation  of  a 
natural  resource  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  prepared  by  Lyman  E.  Cooley 
—1911. 

Bulletin  No.  3 — 

Uses  of  the  Great  Lakes — 1912. 

Bulletin  No.  4 — 

Land  Drainage  in  Illinois,  by  Robert  Isham  Randolph — 1913. 

Bulletin  No.  5 — 

A  Compilation  of  money  spent  by  the  Government  on  various  Harbors, 
Rivers  and  Canals,  and  the  riparian  property  holders  benefited — 1912. 

Bulletin  No.  6 — 

Argument  on  behalf  of  the  State  of  Illinois  supporting  the  prayer  of 
the  Sanitary  District  of  Chicago  for  a  permit  to  take  10,000  cubic  feet 
of  water  per  second  from  Lake  Michigan,  by  Isham  Randolph — 1912. 

Bulletin  No.  7* — 

The  1912  Flood  on  the  Lower  Mississippi,  by  A.  L.  Dabney,  Consulting 
Engineer  and  “The  1912  Flood  in  the  Ohio  and  Mississippi  Rivers,”  by 
H.  C.  Frankenfeld. — 1912. 

Bulletin  No.  8 — 

Proceedings  of  the  organization  meeting  of  the  Association  of  the  Mis¬ 
sissippi  Valley  States  for  river  control — 1912. 

Bulletin  No.  9 — 

The  Illinois  Water  Power  Waterway — 1912. 

Bulletin  No.  10 — 

Illinois  Waterways.  A  guide  for  navigators  from  Lake  Michigan  to  the 
Mississippi  River  via  the  Chicago  Sanitary  and  Ship  Canal,  the  Illinois 
and  Michigan  Canal  and  the  Illinois  River.  Also  an  Alternate  Route 
via  the  Illinois  and  Mississippi  Canal — 1916 — Second  edition. 

Bulletin  No.  11* — 

European  Harbor  Development,  by  Robert  R.  McCormick — 1912. 

Bulletin  No.  12  * — 

Common  Sense  Applied  to  the  Inland  Waterway  Problem,  by  Robert  R. 
McCormick — 1 9  i  2 . 

Bulletin  No.  13 — 

The  Illinois  Waterway,  A  Review  by  Isham  Randolph — 1912. 


35 


Bulletin  No.  14 — 

Water  Resources  of  Illinois — A  cooperative  report  prepared  by  Rivers 
and  Lakes  Commission  and  A.  H.  Horton,  District  Engineer  of  the 
United  States  Geological  Survey — 1914. 

Bulletin  No.  15 — 

The  Illinois  Waterway — A  Project  for  a  waterway  of  eight  feet  minimum 
depth  between  Lockport  and  Utica  and  available  for  immediate  con¬ 
struction — 1914. 

Bulletin  No.  16 — 

Stream  Pollution  and  Sewage  Disposal  in  Illinois  with  reference  to 
Public  Policy  and  Legislation,  by  LeRoy  K.  Sherman — 1915. 

Bulletin  No.  17  * — 

Survey  and  investigation,  La  Moine  River — 1916. 

Bulletin  No.  18 — 

Study  of  Pecatonica  River,  with  special  reference  to  flood  control. 

Report  No.  A — 

The  Illinois  Waterway  Report  with  plans  and  estimates  of  cost  for  a 
deep  waterway  from  Lockport  to  Utica  by  way  of  the  Desplaines  and 
Illinois  Rivers,  Internal  Improvement  Commission — 1909. 

Report  No.  B — 

Surface  Water  Supply  of  Illinois,  Internal  Improvement  Commission — 
1908-1910. 

Report  No.  C — 

Annual  report  of  Rivers  and  Lakes  Commission — 1912. 

Report  No.  D — 

Report  and  Plans  for  reclamation  of  lands  subject  to  overflow  in  the 
Kaskaskia  River  Valley,  Illinois — 1910-1911. 

Report  No.  E — 

Report  upon  the  prevention  of  overflow  of  the  Little  Wabash  and  Skillet 
Fork  Rivers — 1911. 

Report  No.  F — 

Annual  Report  of  Rivers  and  Lakes  Commission — 1913-1914. 

Report  No.  G — 

The  Illinois  River  and  its  Bottom  Lands,  by  Alvord  and  Burdick — 1915.* 

Report  No.  H — 

Map  and  Profile  of  Fox  River — 1915. 


*  On  file  in  office  of  Rivers  and  Lakes  Commission — supply  for  distribution 
exhausted. 


For  any  of  the  foregoing  Publications,  address  Rivers  and  Lakes  Commission 
of  Illinois,  130  North  Fifth  Avenue,  Chicago,  Illinois. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 


3  0112  121965211 


